Prop. 37 supporters vow to keep working for GE food labeling laws

Supporters of the failed Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, blamed the initiative's failure on being outspent by large biotech and food companies and vowed to push for GE labeling laws.

The proposition's failure was apparent Tuesday night, when results showed that 56.1 percent of California's voters opposed the proposed law, which would have required food manufacturers to label raw or processed food made from genetically engineered ingredients.

Had it passed, Prop. 37 would have put California among the ranks of 61 countries that have passed such GE labeling requirements, and the first state in the nation to do so.

The Yes on Proposition 37 campaign held a conference call Wednesday morning to celebrate the campaign's "moral victory" and outline the next steps in the group's continuing effort to push for GE labeling laws nationwide.

"We won a moral victory," said Dave Murphy, co-chairman of the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign, who is also the founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!. "We exposed this issue nationally in a way that's never been done before."

With 56.1 percent of California's voters opposed Tuesday night, campaign organizers blamed the proposition's failure on $50 million in campaign spending by opponents.

The No on 37 campaign, headquartered in Sacramento, had major funding from the Monsanto Company ? a large biotech producer of genetically modified seed, among other products ? E.I. DuPont de Numours & Co. and Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Campaign contributors also included Kraft, Kellogg, General Mills, Coca-Cola and the Campbell Soup Company, among many others.

"We were outspent six-to-one by an opponent that used every dirty trick in the book to mislead voters about what the proposition was about," said Ronnie Cummins, founder and director of Organic Consumers Association.

Voters were "convinced by a barrage of commercials" paid for by the No on 37 campaign telling them the initiative would hurt farmers, create unneeded bureaucracy and keep trial lawyers busy with frivolous lawsuits against "mom-and-pop" producers, according to Cummins.

The state Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the measure would cost the state between a few hundred thousand dollars and more than $1 million annually to regulate labeling, review documents and do periodic inspections -- a claim Grant Lundberg, co-chairman of the Yes on 37 campaign and third-generation farmer, said is false.

No testing is required, he said, and the proposition would have instead used an affidavit system to regulate GE labeling.

"This is not a huge regulatory burden; it's a very simple process," Lundberg said.

Also misleading was the fact that opponents of Prop. 37 used the initiative's language about processed food against itself by telling voters it meant that processed foods would need to be labeled, according to Murphy. The target was foods with GE ingredients, not all processed foods, he said, using as an example -- as the opposition did -- olives that are pressed to produce oil.

"We were resource-short to answer them on the air," Murphy said.

The initiative itself doesn't need major change for future efforts, he said.

A coalition of more than 10,000 volunteers and over 3,800 businesses and non-profit organizations banded together statewide to support the measure, according to proponents.

"This is just the beginning," Murphy said.

Efforts to educate consumers will continue and branch out into marketing as the push for GE labeling moves to other states. The next stop is Washington State, where proponents have gathered about half of the signatures needed to put a similar initiative before voters in the November 2013 election, if it isn't first passed by that state's Legislature, according to Lundberg.

Efforts to develop GE labeling laws are just starting to get under way in Oregon, he said, and activists in 29 states across the nation are also working on similar initiatives, according to Cummins.

Prop. 37 would have also banned the practice of labeling "natural" foods that contain GE ingredients, he said -- an distinction he said is fraught with confusion.

"I think most Californians are not clear about the difference between organic and natural," Cummins said. "Natural' is a marketing term ... that has nothing to do with health or sustainability."

Asked why prospective financial contributors to ongoing GE labeling efforts shouldn't be discouraged by the large conglomerate of corporations with seemingly unlimited campaign resources, Cummins said, "campaign finance reform lies at the heart of the matter."

He continued, "We know we're going to have to raise a lot of money in states like Washington State," and noted the movement needs to align with a "rainbow" of liberal political organizations in the process.

The group is generally optimistic about President Barack Obama's re-election, and intends to hold him accountable for a campaign promise he made in 2007 to label GE foods.

"There has never been such a peak in national consciousness about genetically engineered food," Murphy said.

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, on Twitter @TiffanyRevelle or at 468-3523.